Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,914   Posts: 1,521,754   Online: 1071
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,533
    Some good points above. Before going into more detail, I would advise that underexposing a low contrast scene will not help you increase contrast, regardless of what you do with development. In fact it can work against you.

    When you say 4 clicks, do you mean 4 full stops or is each "click" 1/3 or 1/2 stop? Most current spot meters read in 1/3 stop increments but I wanted to ask you to check this. It makes a big difference. If the brightness range in the scene is 4 stops, a combination of relatively mild extended development, and a higher paper grade can help. If you placed your average on zone V and we assume the range was 4 stops around that, you're basically exposing to put the low values on around zone III, and the high values on zone VII. In this case, a mild extended development could increase the zone VII density a little (without too much increased grain) and you could use a slightly higher filter when printing on MG paper. You might also decide to leave development alone and just use higher contrast in printing. I would not decrease exposure in this case. In fact I might increase exposure a little, to make sure the entire range is on the straight line part of the film's characteristic curve. This will ensure the total contrast is maximized even before you think about development.

    If, on the other hand, each "click" is 1/2 stop or 1/3 stop, the scene is very low in contrast. This would mean if you placed your average on zone V, the range might be only from Zone IV to zone VI, or even less. In a case like that, extended development is not going to do nearly as much to increase contrast, but will still increase graininess substantially (which may or may not be acceptable to you aesthetically depending on film size and print size). In such a case, assuming you use HP5+, if you really want more contrast it is going to come down pretty much entirely to printing - using higher contrast filters - and burning and dodging etc to expand the tonal range. These are powerful tools. In this case, as in the scenario above, again I would advise not to reduce exposure. If the scene is extremely low in contrast, placing the average on zone V is fine. As in the scenario above, underexposing will not help you, and if anything would likely result in decreased contrast.

  2. #12
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,328
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyS. View Post

    I read in an earlier post (thanks Tomas Bertisson) "in low contrast lighting, where you try to stretch the tonal scale so that you don't just use a small portion of the film and paper tonal scale, you want to under-expose and over-develop..." I always use HP5+ at box speed in my Rollei and develop in DD-X for 9 mins. does this mean I need to expose the film at say 800 iso and increase film development by the relevant amount (10 mins according to Massive Dev) or is this an over simplification and am I missing the point ?

    Cheers everyone, Guy.
    This is correct. In flat light we under-expose to keep the average brightness of the scene around zone IV then over-develop to bring the highlights in these areas up to zone VI or sometimes VII. Similar results can be had from shooting as you would in normal lighting and printing on a higher contrast paper as mentioned above. If you're using a spot meter though things are a bit different. If you shoot HP5 at box speed normally then in flat lighting I would recommend you keep the same EI since you are controlling the exposure not your in camera metering. Place shadows on ZIII or most foregrounds may fall on ZIV or V and then check and see where the sky falls. If it's super drab you may find the sky falls on ZVI and with the N+1 development will push this to ZVII. Sometimes though after placing your shadow area the sky will fall on ZVII. In this case you do not necessarily need N+1 development. I find many times on flat days, (which I find is the best light to shoot btw) that if I include the sky in the scene I simply shoot and develop as normal. I meter the sky and place it on ZVII or sometimes VI and check it against the foreground and usually the works, though the foreground is usually flat in the negative and during printing will need local contrast increased. It's when you start shooing scenes in flat light that DO NOT include the sky that you may frequently need N+1. For example when I'm out shooting FP4 with scenes including sky using a spot meter I will shoot at EI 100 and develop normally, but another camera with me which I use handheld for quicker shots is loaded with HP5 and I rely on the in camera metering, so I will set it at EI 640 and increase development about 25%, and shoot scenes without sky and this works great. Sounds confusing but it's really not. If you're using a spot meter, you can maintain your normal EI and simply increase development time when needed. If using in camera metering that's when you're better off under-exposing (shooting HP5 at 640 or 800) and increasing development time about 25%.

    In regards to filters, of course if it's raining and flat white sky nothing will help, but and orange or red filter will help add contrast to overcast and cloudy skies when there are blue-grayish areas in the clouds. These filters will darken these areas. A useful trick when the situation arises.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    East Marion, NY, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyS. View Post
    So if I've read your post correctly, if I was to repeat the process again keeping everything the same except development time, if I was now to increase this by one stop, the highlights would go up one zone but the shadow detail would stay where it is ? The trade off being an increase in visible grain I guess ?
    Yes, as you extend the development time, you'll get more grain. Whether or not it becomes objectionable depends on how much extra development, your negative size and the enlargement ratio of the print.

    If you've got a low-contrast scene in flat light, well, you may not be able to do much about it. Sometimes the picture is not worth taking. Other times, you have to take it the way it wants to go, meaning if it's flat, try making it really flat. Some things work like that, some don't. Morning fog, for example, is naturally low-contrast, so you might try making it extra flat.

    In general, IMHO, a picture with all high values can work well, while a scene with all low values, ummm... usually not so much. I've seen many really nice photographs where the values were all between Zone VI and Zone VIII. A photograph where all the values are below Zone V usually looks muddy, no matter what you do. If there's one really bright spot... a specular reflection on a drop of dew, or a bright white button on a dark shirt, something bright to offset the dark... then sometimes it will brighten the whole picture.

    But usually it's just a muddy mess!
    "What drives man to create is the compulsion to, just once in his life, comprehend and record the pure, unadorned, unvarnished truth. Not some of it; all of it."

    - Fred Picker

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,533
    Underexposing a flat scene can only a) have no effect on contrast, and b) reduce contrast.

  5. #15
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,328
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Underexposing a flat scene can only a) have no effect on contrast, and b) reduce contrast.
    Not if counteracted with over-development, this increases contrast.

  6. #16
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,328
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Michael, I think the confusion between us may be due to the difference between correctly metering a scene, say with a spot meter and relying on in camera metering, which simply averages everything. With a spot meter you place the values where you want them. In this case you would not under-expose the scene but rather meter at your normal EI with increased development if needed. With in camera metering, we underexpose by shooting at a higher EI to keep our lower values down and then bring up the subtle highlights by extending development time. With this method we don't have as much control over our exposures obviously, but this assumes that most scenes will be of average luminance with very short subject brightness ranges. This is for scenes WITHOUT a bright white sky, as I noted above. I've noticed an improvement in my negatives since I started doing this with HP5 and ID-11. I normally shoot HP5 at 400 but for overcast light scenes with no sky I will shoot at EI640 and develop for 15-16 minutes instead of the usual 13 I do for normal scenes. It gives my negatives more contrast and more punch which may or may not lend themselves to everyone's subjects. Shooting and developing normally in flat lighting will give you flat negatives that will need to compensated for with lots of contrast in printing, which is not a big deal.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,533
    It doesn't really matter how you meter. The starting point is the characteristic curve. Maximum contrast is achieved when all the densities fall on the straight line of the curve. One should begin there with a flat scene. Underexposing can only either a)move all the values lower down the straight line (ie no change to total density range) or b)move all the values lower down such that the low values approach the toe area (ie reduction in total density range). Overlaying extended development, the higher the upper values are placed on the curve, the more they will increase in density relative to the low values with a given extension in development. Taking a simple example with most current films, a 3 stop luminance range and a constant increase in development time, placing the range on zones IV-VII (regardless of metering technique) will result in a greater net density expansion than placing on zones II-V.

    In your example, I'm fine with the overdevelopment part, but you need to explain specifically how EI 640 results in a more effective contrast bump than if you stuck with EI 400, assuming an equal increase in development time.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 05-08-2012 at 07:55 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,163
    Images
    6
    I would never recommend underexposure. It costs you shadow detail, no matter how much you develop. The attached photograph showed a contrast range of 2 zones when I metered it. The sculpture is carved out of very dark gray stone and I made the negative on an overcast day and the carving was shaded from the sky. I put the darkest part of the picture on Zone III and the white line running down the right side fell on Zone V. Increased development saved the day, without reducing exposure.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	station14 (2).JPG 
Views:	26 
Size:	60.0 KB 
ID:	50701
    Jim

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,912
    Quote Originally Posted by jp498 View Post
    Find scenes that look good in low contrast. Over develop a little if you need to.

    Low contrast can be great for portraits, macro photos, cars, products, etc... God's big softbox if you will. I just incident meter and go with it.

    exactly !
    Ես այլեւս չի պատասխանելու իմ էլեկտրոնային փոստով
    եթե դուք պետք է ինձ դիմեք ինձ միջոցով իմ կայքը կամ բլոգում

  10. #20
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,328
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    It really does matter how you meter. If you're spot metering you obviously would not under-expose, as you're placing the shadows where they should be. But with in camera average metering and a very flat scene you may need to uprate the film to get the same exposure as your spot metered scene. For example, in Jim's example above he obviously spot metered, but if he was shooting with in camera average metering I doubt he would have gotten then same exposure at the same ISO, especially consider the "highlights" fell on zone V. With in camera he more than likely would have had to shoot at a higher EI to keep from overexposing the shadows which can happen with in camera metering average metering for scenes like this. So no I'm not recommending shooting a 400 speed film at 640 if you're spot metering, that makes no sense at all. What I'm saying is if you're using an in camera average metering you may need to uprate your film to keep your shadows from overexposing which can happen with a very low SBR scene such as Jim's example above. Hope I explained that better.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin